The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags: ,

Excellent X/Y stereo SDC cardioid mic for field use? Schoeps X/Y CLONE? Condenser Microphones
Old 5th February 2010
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
If you will do this, you will find that the maximum of M+S and M-S are at -45° or +45° (or vice versa), because it's a consequence of the trigonometry relations here above.
Didier, a last shot to convince you - now with a qualitative scenario - then I'll cease and desist.
1. The max signal strength from of a L or R virtual mic is of course from sounds arriving along its internal major axis.

2. MS matrixing of two identical Fig-8's gives a Fig-8 L-R virtual pair oriented at +/- 45°. (i.e. becomes classic Blumlein)

3. Now replace the M-Fig-8 with a cardioid.

4. The cardioid has a wider response pattern than the Fig-8, so sounds arriving from sources at the hall sides will now generate relatively stronger signals.

5 Clearly, to accommodate and reflect that change, the L-R virtual pair now has to become swiveled outwards so that each mic's major axis points more to the side.

6. That is, the included angle has been prised open beyond + / - 45°. (to +/- 63°)

7. Now replace the M-cardioiid with an omni.

8. Similar tale - the omni is wider than the cardioid, so the virtual pair has to be prised even further open, now to an included angle +/- 90°.

"Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA
Old 5th February 2010
Gear interested

Originally Posted by 666666 View Post
I am indeed very excited to explore MS more thoroughly soon.

My field recorder (Tascam 2-channel HD-P2) I'm pretty sure does not have a built-in MS decoder on the headphone output. But I'll check. I don't remember ever noting such a feature on that unit, then again it does have a very large amount of features, might have missed it.

I wonder if anyone sells a super small passive MS decoder that could be plugged in between the recorder and headphones... or perhaps be fed from the main audio outs and then have a headphone output jack on it.

The more I think about it, due to this decoding issue, I could see myself potentially using XY in cases where I'm recording something for someone else (often just a favor) and just want to be able to shoot them the stereo audio file quickly, as is, right out of the recorder, without having to bring it into a mixer to decode / tweak etc. There's something to be said for being able to upload a stereo audio file from a recorder into a computer and then instantly upload to a server, all done before you even finish your first cup of coffee.

However, for things I'd be recording for my own purposes where I DO wish to have maximum tweaking control later in the studio, MS sounds like an awesome strategy. I have to question if I really need to monitor a decoded signal anyway in this case. Usually when I'm recording in a club etc, I am not wearing headphones / not monitoring on the fly anyway. So perhaps I do not even need a decoder. BUT, if there was one available, super small and inexpensive, I'd probably pick it up, just to have... I'm sure it might come in handy.
The MS Sanken CS 7s Titan membrane has a battery Powered MS Device CMS MBBII and the mic is very good but a bit more noisy then AT 3031/32 or my Sanken CS3e.
Old 5th February 2010
Gear interested

Just want to trow in this item here:
Studio Sound, July 1986 Stereo Shuffling New Approach – Old Technique
Michael Gerzon introduces an approach for experimentation
The basic idea of the shuffler goes back to Alan
Blumlein's invention of modern stereo in 19311.
Given M and S, the original left and right signals can be
recovered by a second sum-and-difference operation,
via 2L=M+S and 2R=M–S. By thinking in terms of the
sum and difference signals, Blumlein was not merely
able to devise the MS microphone technique (which was
rediscovered and named by Laurisden in Denmark in
the 1950s) but was able to modify the stereo effect of
other recordings. In particular, Blumlein was able to
modify the width of the stereo images of coincidentmicrophone
recordings by increasing (or decreasing) the
gain of the S signal relative to M before recovering the
left and right signals (Fig 1). An increase in the relative
gain of S increased width, whereas a decrease of S gain
decreased width. In view of the fact that width control
was known in 1931, it is strange that it is still not
available on most modern stereo equipment.
One of Blumlein's many discoveries' was that increased
width could yield stereo images beyond the left and
right speakers. This useful discovery would permit one
to pan sounds over a wider stage than normally used in
today's studio. There is no reason why panpots should
not be designed to cover such an increased stage width
– yet I am unaware of a single mixer in which this is
actually done.
This is not to say that width control is without problems
– which we shall discuss in more detail further on –
however, these problems can often be solved by a more
sophisticated process called 'shuffling', also based on
Blumlein's work. Blumlein noted that one could not
merely alter the gain of the difference signal S, but one
could alter this gain in a frequency-dependent way by
using an equaliser. By this means he showed how one
could improve the directional quality of particular stereo
microphone techniques (including one pseudo-dummyhead
technique rediscovered at the BBC a few years
ago). The process of equalising the difference and sum
signals differently before recovering left and right is
termed 'shuffling'. In effect, shuffling is a frequency
dependent width control.
Attached Thumbnails
Excellent X/Y stereo SDC cardioid mic for field use? Schoeps X/Y CLONE?-bild-21.jpg  
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf (185.4 KB, 300 views)
Old 5th February 2010
Lives for gear
didier.brest's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tom McC View Post
Didier, a last shot to convince you - now with a qualitative scenario -
Tom, I cannot be convinced by such a qualitative scenario, like you seem not being able to be convinced by the trigonometry. Here below the values of 1 + cos(angle) + sin(angle) for angle varying from 0 to 90° by step of 5°:

angle °.................1 + cos(angle) + sin(angle)

0.0000 .................2.0000
5.0000 .................2.0834
10.0000 ...............2.1585
15.0000 ...............2.2247
20.0000 ...............2.2817
25.0000 ...............2.3289
30.0000 ...............2.3660
35.0000 ...............2.3927
40.0000 ...............2.4088
45.0000 ..............2.4142
50.0000 ...............2.4088
55.0000 ...............2.3927
60.0000 ...............2.3660
65.0000 ...............2.3289
70.0000 ...............2.2817
75.0000 ...............2.2247
80.0000 ...............2.1585
85.0000 ...............2.0834
90.0000 ...............2.0000

What else could I do for convincing you?

Old 5th February 2010
Gear interested

What about the spillover reflections from the "other Mic" parallel top on each other?
Because all stuff in the way near mics has an influence to the sound and its not make things better.
The Schoeps way with Mics to face to face is a bit better. Both M+S Coincendent in one Body like Sanken CS7 Neumann 191 avoid this. Only my Paranoia?
Old 5th February 2010
Lives for gear
boojum's Avatar
Originally Posted by headroom2000 View Post
Just want to trow in this item here:
Studio Sound, July 1986 Stereo Shuffling New Approach – Old Technique
Michael Gerzon introduces an approach for experimentation
The basic idea of the shuffler goes back to Alan
Blumlein's invention of modern stereo in 19311.


I love this board! What a source of info I need to learn with.

Old 5th February 2010
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
What else could I do for convincing you?

Didier, I omitted to mention that while the front-facing cardioid does have a general 'shape' of 1 + cosX, its rigorous, normalized description of 0.5[1 + cosX] actually has to be employed in the calculations.

This is required because when we define mics as having identical sensitivity, the convention is that we mean that the maximum output of the mics (along their major axis) are identical. Thus our Fig-8 mic has a maxmum output of sin(90) =1, and our cardioid has a maximum output of 0.5[1 + cos(0)] = 1. If we stayed with a 1+ cosX pattern then that would have a too-hot output of '2 (volts or suchlike) and we would not be meeting our criteria of mixing equal sensitivity cardioids and Fig-8's at equal preamp gain settings.

I apologize for my haste and sloppiness in tossing you an inexact formula when I challenged you to go and run it through your own spreadsheet.

The adjusted formula for the L virtual mic is 0.5[1 + cos(angle)] + sin(angle)

And as seen in the calculations below, this does output the results that I have claimed. Again please trust me on this, for it is all completely in line with the results of Dooley and Streicher: (If needed, I could send you a spreadsheet which would allow you to plug in other patterns of mics and mix weightings) I realize that all this has cost you time and hassle, and there is a little bit of semantics involved in the definitions..but I think we have all learned something.


wrong equation` => corrected equation
angle °.........1 + cos(angle) + sin(angle) 0.5[1 + cos(angle)] + sin(angle)
0.0000 .................2.0000 1.0000 + 0.0000 = 1.0000
5.0000 .................2.0834 0.9981 + 0.0872 = 1.0853
10.0000 ...............2.1585 0.9924 + 0.1736 = 1.1661
15.0000 ...............2.2247 0.9830 + 0.2588 = 1.2418
20.0000 ...............2.2817 0.9698 + 0.3420 = 1.3119
25.0000 ...............2.3289 0.9532 + 0.4226 = 1.3758
30.0000 ...............2.3660 0.9330 + 0.5000 = 1.4330
35.0000 ...............2.3927 0.9096 + 0.5736 = 1.4832
40.0000 ...............2.4088 0.8830 + 0.6428 = 1.5258
45.0000 ..............2.4142 0.8536 + 0.7071 = 1.5607
50.0000 ...............2.4088 0.8214 + 0.7660 = 1.5874
55.0000 ...............2.3927 0.7868 + 0.8192 = 1.6059
60.0000 .............2.3660 0.7500 + 0.8660 = 1.6160
65.0000 .............2.3289 0.7113 + 0.9063 = 1.6176
70.0000 ...............2.2817 0.6710 + 0.9397 = 1.6107
75.0000 ...............2.2247 0.6294 + 0.9659 = 1.5953
80.0000 ...............2.1585 0.5868 + 0.9848 = 1.5716
85.0000 ...............2.0834 0.5436 + 0.9962 = 1.5398
90.0000 ...............2.0000 0.5000 + 1.0000 = 1.5000

Old 5th February 2010
Lives for gear
didier.brest's Avatar

Thanks Tom. I agree on this one.
Old 5th February 2010
Gear interested

Originally Posted by boojum View Post
I love this board! What a source of info I need to learn with.

Here is more to feed the hungry synapses...

Schoeps Double MS with Shootgun Page 10
Attached Files
File Type: pdf o48.pdf (124.6 KB, 1261 views) File Type: pdf SCHOEPS_surround-brochure.pdf (1.40 MB, 261 views) File Type: pdf Artikel V6 englisch V2_0 mit Bildern.doc.pdf (457.6 KB, 617 views) File Type: pdf Notes on MS-Matrix Circuits.pdf (81.0 KB, 1855 views) File Type: pdf Binauralsky.pdf (1.17 MB, 651 views) File Type: pdf MidSideProcessing.pdf (97.5 KB, 702 views) File Type: pdf technique.pdf (637.1 KB, 8585 views)
Old 6th February 2010
Gear interested

I also hade good results with Level Time Equality 90 degree 22cm Distance 2 cardoids
It is based from german Soundingeer Sengpiel. Its a compromise between ORTF and NOS. Used it for documentarty movies and Choir Recordings. I have here a german pdf page 25/26 with more details about it.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Diplomarbeit.pdf (421.2 KB, 397 views)
Old 6th February 2010
Gear interested

Old 6th February 2010

Old 6th February 2010
Lives for gear
didier.brest's Avatar

Originally Posted by NorseHorse View Post
Even if the combined polar patterns are close, the imaging is not.
Which is equivalent to saying

Even if the combined polar patterns are close, they are not the same.
Old 6th February 2010
I disagree (I think).

Polar response is simply amplitude for a given frequency at a given degree. What I'm refering to is the relationship between the two mics which creates the stereo image (not the polar pattern). So, while the combined polar pattern XY and MS can be the same depending on how you adjust the ratio of mid to side (see West Dooley's paper, page 9), XY cannot match the ability to localize sounds. There is too much shared (overlapping) information between the two capsules to create a sufficiently wide (not to mention accurate) image for distant miking.

Still trying to figure out the best way to say the distinction I'm trying to make, so if anybody else can flesh it out, that'd be great.

Let me try again....

Matching polar patterns at the secondary level (ie. stereo pairs) does not gaurantee matching imaging because of differences remain in polar patterns at the primary level (individual microphones).
Old 6th February 2010
Ah ha. Yes, I think I'm getting closer to what I'm trying to say.

Think about mono. XY and MS with identical polar patterns would send the same in MONO (because their secondary level polar pattern is the same; and yes, you'd need to unmatrix the MS to do this), but not in stereo. This demonstrates that polar pattern at the secondary level does not determine stereo imaging.
Old 6th February 2010
Lives for gear
didier.brest's Avatar

There is no way of combining a cardioid directivity pattern as M and a a figure of eight pattern S steered perpendicularly to M so that to get a cardioid pattern other than M. Restated in other words: under the above assumptions, M + aS is a cardioid if and only if a = 0. With MS you can get two patterns steered at plus and minus any angle but these patterns are not cardioid except if the angle is zero.
Old 7th February 2010
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by NorseHorse View Post
Ah ha. Yes, I think I'm getting closer to what I'm trying to say......

Norsehorse, to expand on Didier's comments and give you something to hang yourr hat on, I enclose below some calculations for the 'virtual' XY mic patterns that result when you run MS using an ideal cardioid ("0.5 + 0.5cosX") with a Fig-8 of the same sensitivity ("0 + 1cosX")

Three scenario's are shown: for M/S mix weightings of 2:1, 1:1, and 1:2 (i.e linear ratios, e.g voltage). And the patterns for cardioid, Fig-8, and hypercardioid ("0.25 + 0.75cosX" are included as reference

By inspection - hope table does not get too munged - you can see that a 1:1 mix of M and S equates reasonably closely to hypercardioids with an X-Y included angle of ca. 127
°. Also the polar patterns of the virtual mics change with mix weightings, but are never cardioid (except, of course, for the tivial case given by Didier)

I don't know if you dialled in similar hypercardioid patterns and angles when you used your Schoeps CMTS mic, but if not, then you are comparing apples with oranges, and your conclusions may be a bit premature and simplistic.


Mic patterns:
Virtual XY mics Reference mics
'2M+S' 'M+S' 'M+2S' Card Hyper Fig-8
Included angle,
° 90 127 75 - - -
of virtual XY
Angle Off-axis level drop (-dB)
0° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10° 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.13
20° 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.15 0.40 0.54
30° 0.71 0.84 0.99 0.60 0.92 1.25
40° 1.28 1.53 1.81 1.08 1.68 2.31
50° 2.04 2.46 2.94 1.71 2.71 3.84
60° 3.01 3.68 4.47 2.50 4.08 6.02
70° 4.23 5.27 6.55 3.47 5.91 9.32
80° 5.75 7.35 9.50 4.63 8.40 15.21
90° 7.66 10.20 14.19 6.02 12.04 inf
100° 10.10 14.47 24.04 7.68 18.43
110° 13.40 22.78 9.66 43.72
Old 7th February 2010
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by Tom McC View Post
Included angle,° 90 127 75 - - -
Oops - typo correction: The included angle of XY generated from 'M + 2S' is 150 deg. (75 deg. was the +/- half-angle)
Old 7th February 2010
Gear interested

Originally Posted by NorseHorse View Post
Even if the combined polar patterns are close, the imaging is not. Check it out:

Recording the Wren Organ · TechDeck: XY and MS
Because to off axis coloration makes a big difference, and here the DPA Cardoids are shining. Wide Cardoids are less prone this?
Old 7th February 2010
Gear interested

One post I forgot is the Streoophonc zoom. A tool for optical device helping to determine the recording angle. Please excuse my swiss english....
The stereoponic zoom.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
Old 7th February 2010
Re: McC

Yes, in one respect, it is like comparing apples and oranges. And it is simplistic!

[That they're different] is what I'm trying to demonstrate. Put an XY and MS pair in the same spot, and you won't get the same results. An XY pair simply won't be able to get you the same imaging. I'm not sure how Dooley's ratios translated to db differences between the channels, so if I'd had time to go back to the original files, I still wouldn't have known just what the ratio was. I wasn't clear with that in my post, so I'll be sure to update it today.

The different possibilities and superior imaging offered by MS make it superior for distant miking. (Just swing on by The Brauner XY stands out like a sore thumb.) I'd be happy to listen to any examples to the contrary. thumbsup
Old 7th February 2010
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by NorseHorse View Post
Put an XY and MS pair in the same spot, and you won't get the same results...... thumbsup
My main non-confrontational point was that, if one wishes to compare XY with MS, then a more honest comparison could possibly be to compare, say, the Schoeps Mk 41 hypercardioid as XY, arrayed at 130 deg. included angle, against a 1:1 MS pair derived from the Mk 4 cardioid / Mk 8 Fig-8. (Due allowance would have to be made for the Mk 4's nominal sensitivity being 13 mV/Pa, while the Mk 8 sensitivity is only 10mV/Pa).

And arguably even fairer might be also to individually tweak the low end responses of those 3 capsules, using the spec sheet data, so that they become nominally 'omni flat'. I have pairs of Schoeps Mk 4, Mk 8 and Mk 2S, but no Mk 41, so alas I am unable to satisfy my own curiosity with such a test.

But this is of course pretty academic and theoretical, for I think most folks concur that, even after noble efforts to 'level the shoot-out playing field', there will always remain an audible difference between XY and MS with real world mics - for no further reason needed than that the mic off-axis frequency responses are not always well-behaved.
Old 23rd July 2010

Old 5th August 2010
Gear interested

Pearl Microphones

Pearl Microphones in Sweden has a great X/Y microphone which sounds incredible. It also doubles as an MS if you turn it and matrix the output. Because it has two double membranes, I think you could even do Blumlein but that is bit out of my league.

I have recorded a choir with this mike with excellent results. One mike right in front of the people and there you go. Because of the rectangular membranes, you get less reflections from floor and ceiling.

Cheers SolS

HTML Code:
Old 5th August 2010
Lives for gear
boojum's Avatar
From the description of four cardioids making up the mic I would think it is a Blumlein if decoded as such. The price, ~6K USD is a bit out of my range. Just a bit. LOL Interesting mic, though.

Do you have any links you could post of the recordings made with it, clips maybe??

Found this at RecordingHacks. Yes, it will work as a Blumlein:

Last edited by boojum; 5th August 2010 at 11:27 PM.. Reason: found more info
Old 10th August 2010
Gear interested

My recording using the DS 60 was some time ago so I need to dig in my archives to find it. I shall take a look.

Tip 1: Somewhere else here on Gearslutz, I saw that there was someone who wanted to sell a DS 60 for $2,000, a guy in Belgium I believe.

Tip 2: Contact Pearl in Sweden directly. Maybe they have something to offer. They are really nice people. It's a very small company.

Good luck!
Old 10th August 2010
Gear interested

Here it is:

HTML Code:
Old 10th August 2010
Lives for gear
Plush's Avatar
The reason Schoeps CMXY is expensive is because it is made to sell to French broadcast. Also to govt. and high end church end users.

The church never runs out of money.
Old 11th August 2010
Lives for gear

Originally Posted by Sol String View Post
Because of the rectangular membranes, you get less reflections from floor and ceiling.
The membrane area needs to be BIG in order to affect off axis pic up due to that mechanism (other than in the top octave).

Old 3rd April 2011
Lives for gear
666666's Avatar

Thread Starter
For the heck of it....

The other night I recorded a loud rock guitar gig for a friend at a small club using two Schoeps MK4V mics in XY pattern (essentially mimicking a Schoeps CMXY4V stereo mic). I was about 12 feet back from the stage, slightly off to one side. I was actually next to the video camera. The mics were hand-held (surprisingly no handling noise observed), recorded into my Tascam HD-P2 running on battery power, 16/44.1. No shock mount handle or anything, I just held the mics directly.

I believe there is a bit of processing on the audio that was done by the person that posted the YouTube clip, seems there is a bit of compression and a little bit of low-end boost compared to the way the clip originally sounded to me when I checked it in my headphones that night. But otherwise, all you're hearing here is just the two Schoeps mics, no other mics.

I was very impressed with what was captured by these mics, almost sounds like an off the board type recording utilizing a bunch of close mics, but yet just a mere stereo mic set-up 12' out from the stage. I'm loving these MK4Vs! And certainly not too bright even though they do have a slight high-frequency bump.

Seems to be good stereo spread too considering. I had the capsules at about 90 degrees apart, a little on the wide side considering how close I was... but it worked.

Guitar is loud and clear. Drums are present too, they were coming through a PA, you're probably hearing a blend of actual drum sound mixed with PA sound. Bass unfortunately is more distant sounding. But I did remember it sounding that way in the room, the bass player could have had a bit more presence dialed in plus a bit more volume. Bass cab was not angled directly towards me either like the guitar cab was. And also, there were some people in front of me that were somewhat blocking the mic's view to the bass amp, so that right there likely hurt it a bit, wasn't totally blocked, but it wasn't a 100% clear shot either. If I had been in the center of the room with nobody at all in front of me, it likely would have come out even better with more accurate balance and more accurate stereo. But, I got there late and wasn't about to start pushing people around etc, I found a decent open spot and was happy.

It's so easy and convenient to hold a pair of Schoeps mics with side-address capsules, very ergonomic configuration, as opposed to using front-address capsules and then having to use a stereo bar (at least for XY) which is way more cumbersome to hold, especially in a small crowed club.

Schoeps MK4V pair in XY - rock gig

Edit: Next time I may try MS with an MK4 and MK8.... but I'm liking these MK4Vs in XY so much already that I may already be sold on this technique for this purpose. Can't beat the ergonomics of it. Very stealth too. Had the Schoeps in one hand, a beer in the other hand and the Tascam over my shoulder, was very easy to deal with and did not draw any attention. This would probably make a great bootleg set-up!

Last edited by 666666; 3rd April 2011 at 06:28 PM..
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.

Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread Starter / Forum
audiothings / Low End Theory
PaRaNoId / So much gear, so little time
samuel33 / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
jimmyz / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording

Forum Jump
Forum Jump